Robinson R22 Corner [Archive copy]
Let me get this right......Frank says flying an R-22 helicopter is the most dangerous thing I can do....every 2 out of 60 pilots who fly the R-22 will die.....the R-22 was never built as a trainer....you'll nay be gettin' more out of them engines Capn!....gee.....life sucks.
BF:
Read carefully. "Flying a light aircraft or a helicopter is about the most dangerous thing you’re ever going to do" is what was actually reported. Similarly, "2 out of 60 pilots will die" - no type mentioned.
It might be worth asking some of the more seasoned guys - you may indeed be one yourself - if these figures ring true in their experience across all types of aircraft and operation.
Or have I missed the point of your post completely ?
Read carefully. "Flying a light aircraft or a helicopter is about the most dangerous thing you’re ever going to do" is what was actually reported. Similarly, "2 out of 60 pilots will die" - no type mentioned.
It might be worth asking some of the more seasoned guys - you may indeed be one yourself - if these figures ring true in their experience across all types of aircraft and operation.
Or have I missed the point of your post completely ?
Just a numbered other
Fairy
He said
Since he's talking to people on a Robinson course, I'd guess he means Robbie pilots.
Don't think I'd fancy those odds. Two engines (turbines) please
He said
You can reckon that out of the people here (there are 60 on each course) two of you will be killed doing it.
Don't think I'd fancy those odds. Two engines (turbines) please
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ArkRoyal: Robinson is talking about our branch of aviation in the round.
It's noticeable that the emphasis of the Robinson Safety Course has shifted away from the Robinson products as the accident landscape has changed.
When I went there seven years ago the great concerns were low RRPM stalls and mast bumping.
This time, it was clear from the stats that the big killers are wire strikes and bad judgment calls. The others still get a look in, but instructors and pilots understand them now.
It's noticeable that the emphasis of the Robinson Safety Course has shifted away from the Robinson products as the accident landscape has changed.
When I went there seven years ago the great concerns were low RRPM stalls and mast bumping.
This time, it was clear from the stats that the big killers are wire strikes and bad judgment calls. The others still get a look in, but instructors and pilots understand them now.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arkroyal : "Two engines (turbines) please"
And what makes you think this configuration will save your life ?
All that weight, all that fuel, all that complexity, all that extra stress - all that BS.
All that - and when your no.1 goes, no.2 will fly you to your accident.
When will this myth of "2 better than 1" finally be wiped out ? It is perpetuated by those who have not a care for the costs of helicopters - and a blind eye for statistics.
And what makes you think this configuration will save your life ?
All that weight, all that fuel, all that complexity, all that extra stress - all that BS.
All that - and when your no.1 goes, no.2 will fly you to your accident.
When will this myth of "2 better than 1" finally be wiped out ? It is perpetuated by those who have not a care for the costs of helicopters - and a blind eye for statistics.
Just a numbered other
headsethair
Well, I'm still here, and on at least two occassions I might not have been had I been flying a single.
Er, no actually.
When engines are perfect.
It was a tongue in cheek comment really, but I really wouldn't have fancied some of my past life in a single.
And what makes you think this configuration will save your life ?
All that - and when your no.1 goes, no.2 will fly you to your accident
When will this myth of "2 better than 1" finally be wiped out
It was a tongue in cheek comment really, but I really wouldn't have fancied some of my past life in a single.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i thought putting r44's into training and mustering would only increase the accident rate to equal the 22? cant see many people paying 750 bucks per hour to do either, i think there'll be enough old ones around to kick on for a while untill everyone gets a 300.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ----------
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys i think we are loosing the plot here. as a low time with both twin and single time on my licence i would have thought that when things go wrong it depends on what gos wrong as to wheather a single or a twin will help you out.
Personaly i would prefere a twin any time at least if one goes wrong you have a little time to sort things out. but again it depends on what it is that wants sorting out. (well thats the theory anyway)
But it can only be to personal choice.
I still feel it would ba a shame to loose the R22 but i have to aggree with the thinking of franks mob there is only so much you can get out of a pint pot.
thats my 10p ,s worth anyway
Sincerely
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Personaly i would prefere a twin any time at least if one goes wrong you have a little time to sort things out. but again it depends on what it is that wants sorting out. (well thats the theory anyway)
But it can only be to personal choice.
I still feel it would ba a shame to loose the R22 but i have to aggree with the thinking of franks mob there is only so much you can get out of a pint pot.
thats my 10p ,s worth anyway
Sincerely
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following summary is my understanding based on several emails between myself and Patrick Cox. For those who are unaware, Patrick is a technical representative for Robinson and lectures on the brilliant Safety Course at the factory in Torrance. Suffice to say, Pat is something of a guru on Robbies, falling into the "what he doesn't know about Robinsons is not worth knowing" category. He also does a very good job of promoting PPRuNe on the Factory Safety Course
The Governor change was deliberate, and came about as a result of SN-36, issued Nov 00 (as cl12pv2s correctly pointed out). For those that don't have access, this is the reproduced text of Safety Notice 36:
However, as Grainger pointed out, we now have "Governor On" twice, once on the "Before Starting Engine" checklist and again on the "Starting Engine and Run-Up" checklist. The reason behind this is simply overkill - Robinson want the governor switched on all the time to help prevent the many rotor and engine overspeeds on liftoff.
You will notice that none of the checklists have you turning the Governor off. If the governor is meant to be switched on all the time, logic dictates it should reduce the chances of operating without it. This is what Robinson are seeking to achieve. Also remembering that not all ships have the "Governor Off" warning light.
As for overspeeds on startup, the governor will probably not prevent an engine overspeed if the throttle is open significantly; the unloaded engine just accelerates too fast.
At the risk of boring you all senseless, I would like to once again reiterate what I've mentioned earlier - the subs start at $10/year and are a great investment for anyone flying a Robinson Product - check here for publication updates.
Thanks Patrick for taking the time out to answer my questions, and to everyone for their input on the thread
The Governor change was deliberate, and came about as a result of SN-36, issued Nov 00 (as cl12pv2s correctly pointed out). For those that don't have access, this is the reproduced text of Safety Notice 36:
Overspeeds During Liftoff
Helicopters have been severely damaged by RPM overspeeds during liftoff. The overspeeds caused a tail rotor drive shaft vibration which led to immediate failure of shaft and tailcone. Throughout the normal RPM range, tail rotor shaft vibration is controlled by damper bearing. However, damper is not effective above 120% RPM.
Mechanical correlation can cause overspeed during liftoff if RPM is increased to normal flight settings and collective raised before governor is switched on. Overspeeds can also occur if throttle is gripped too firmly during liftoff causing governor to be overridden. Inexperienced pilots, who are most likely to be nervous or distracted, are particularly susceptible to this type of overspeed.
To avoid overspeeds during liftoff:
1. Always confirm governor on before increasing RPM above 80%
2. Verify governor stabilizes engine RPM near top of green arc
3. Maintain relaxed grip on throttle allowing governor to control RPM
Helicopters have been severely damaged by RPM overspeeds during liftoff. The overspeeds caused a tail rotor drive shaft vibration which led to immediate failure of shaft and tailcone. Throughout the normal RPM range, tail rotor shaft vibration is controlled by damper bearing. However, damper is not effective above 120% RPM.
Mechanical correlation can cause overspeed during liftoff if RPM is increased to normal flight settings and collective raised before governor is switched on. Overspeeds can also occur if throttle is gripped too firmly during liftoff causing governor to be overridden. Inexperienced pilots, who are most likely to be nervous or distracted, are particularly susceptible to this type of overspeed.
To avoid overspeeds during liftoff:
1. Always confirm governor on before increasing RPM above 80%
2. Verify governor stabilizes engine RPM near top of green arc
3. Maintain relaxed grip on throttle allowing governor to control RPM
You will notice that none of the checklists have you turning the Governor off. If the governor is meant to be switched on all the time, logic dictates it should reduce the chances of operating without it. This is what Robinson are seeking to achieve. Also remembering that not all ships have the "Governor Off" warning light.
As for overspeeds on startup, the governor will probably not prevent an engine overspeed if the throttle is open significantly; the unloaded engine just accelerates too fast.
At the risk of boring you all senseless, I would like to once again reiterate what I've mentioned earlier - the subs start at $10/year and are a great investment for anyone flying a Robinson Product - check here for publication updates.
Thanks Patrick for taking the time out to answer my questions, and to everyone for their input on the thread
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've spoken to a couple of people who use R44's for mustering, their comments are that it's significantly more versatile.
The R44 has much more margin, so a significantly reduced pucker factor, particularly 2 up and the cattle tend to respond to the different sound quite well.
It's also much better for vermin control, as you can put 2 shooters in it, will lift lots more hay bales when it's flooding and carries a couple of extra chicks when the B & S is on.
Cost is only a major factor when the cattle prices are really low, so you don't use it for stragglers.
Having said all that, a cleaned up 300 with a tubo diesel and a good air filter.... Anybody listening out there????
The R44 has much more margin, so a significantly reduced pucker factor, particularly 2 up and the cattle tend to respond to the different sound quite well.
It's also much better for vermin control, as you can put 2 shooters in it, will lift lots more hay bales when it's flooding and carries a couple of extra chicks when the B & S is on.
Cost is only a major factor when the cattle prices are really low, so you don't use it for stragglers.
Having said all that, a cleaned up 300 with a tubo diesel and a good air filter.... Anybody listening out there????
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
Charlie S Charlie,
Thanks for confirming all that with Mr. Cox (RHC).
There was only one other thing that caught my eye when I first saw the changes. This is that if the govenor is now supposed to be on at all times, it could be possible for a pilot NEVER to see the govenor warning light working, unless it is specifically checked during preflight. (See below.)
In the new preflight checklist it does say 'Warning Lights....Check' and I suppose this is where we would logically include a check of the Govenor Warning light.
Given that most people's preflight inspections are sloppy at the best of times, I would have thought it would be prudent to specifically include 'Govenor Warring Light....Check', in the preflight checklist.
That's all. Thanks again for checking that out.
CL12PV2S
Thanks for confirming all that with Mr. Cox (RHC).
There was only one other thing that caught my eye when I first saw the changes. This is that if the govenor is now supposed to be on at all times, it could be possible for a pilot NEVER to see the govenor warning light working, unless it is specifically checked during preflight. (See below.)
In the new preflight checklist it does say 'Warning Lights....Check' and I suppose this is where we would logically include a check of the Govenor Warning light.
Given that most people's preflight inspections are sloppy at the best of times, I would have thought it would be prudent to specifically include 'Govenor Warring Light....Check', in the preflight checklist.
That's all. Thanks again for checking that out.
CL12PV2S
Okay but what about a new one...
Everybody seems to have jumped on the fact that Frank suggested that he may stop making the R22. However, what if he decided to do the complete redesign that the R22 needs to progress further? What is it that we actually want?
The major difficulty in helicopter design, especially small helicopter design is the choice of engine. Lycoming engines are too heavy for helicopters really, and de-rated ones make things particularly difficult. Unfortunately, there are few alternatives. This is a point that Frank has made in the press about the R55 that is on the horizon, if we take the R55 as an example to illustrate the point: You would have to work a IO-540 rather hard to get the ~300hp required for a healthy five-seater and the IO-720 is very heavy due to the long-block layout, neither make the 'Robinson de-rate' policy particularly easy to implement in a meaningful manner, not to mention the fact that the engines are dated to say the least. With the exception of the Zoche 300hp aero-diesel engine (which is STILL not ready) all of the modern diesel engines are heavier than Lycomings and are unproven technology when used in the demanding helicopter duty-cycle. Turbines provide that much needed power-to-weight ratio though the RR C250 Series has terrible fuel consumption, especially when de-rated, not to mention the fact that the cost of a new C250 is about half the cost of a Raven I.
In my opinion, if Mr Zoche gets his finger-out then his 300hp aero-deisel is a candidate for the R55, it will be a little short on power in its de-rated helicopter form but it only weights 123kg, which is ~80kg lighter than a IO-540-S, or ~135kg lighter than a IO-720, which is an extra passenger in engine weight-saving alone without the 14kg per hour fuel weight saving.
There is of course the question as to whether Mr R will allow is flagship to fly with an unproven new engine...what about his prized mantle 'De-rated pistons are more reliable than small turbines?' Would a new diesel engine be able to live up to it? Hmmmmm, not likely.
This is probably the biggest concern, the benefits of the more innovative new diesel units are clear, but when they will eventually be useable is anyone's guess. If I was a betting man then I think my money would be on an IO-580 with angled valves, tuned induction, smart exhaust and a bit of help from a FADEC system such as the various aftermarket systems out there. Simply because its a low risk strategy on which Robinson can bring to bear all of the experience they have in getting the best out of the old Lycoming thumpers.
The important point here is that the R55 is growing into a very economical helicopter to compete in many markets with JetRangers, MD500's and the rest of the entry-level turbines, therefore the additional complexity and cost is easy to justify. However if you consider what would be required from a 'Next Generation Training Helicopter', then the situation begins to look rather uninviting.
By the very nature of being 'entry-level machines' training helicopters operate in the most cost sensitive sector of the market and therefore a key objective of any new design machine is to reduce the direct-operating cost. This is the factor that is limiting growth in the market sector. However, if Mr R wants to apply a similar strategy to the one outlined above for enhancing performance and refining his approach, sticking to Lycoming power-plants, and adding 'all of the usual refinements' will increase the cost substantially. In addition, a greater payload requirement and the heavier rotor system and fuselage will require more power and hence more fuel consumption, hence the DOC goes up again. All of the time blurring the line between the R2X and the R44 Raven I...is it worth it? It seems Frank thinks not.
In addition, with various companies around the world working on much more advanced (and risky) training helicopters than the probable R22 replacement, all of which would take some market share, again questions, is the R2X a worthwhile investment for the RHC? Probably not...RHC does not need to take risks, its formula for simple reliable helicopters works and can be extended to the five seat R55 for which a large market, and profit-margin exist. Beyond that then a new strategy will be required as using the IO-720 won't work, so it must be turbine but Robinson will have to think very carefully about what its products offer when powered by turbine engines in comparison to the competition, because I for one can’t see it.
In conclusion then...[applause
]
If Robinson were to replace the R22 with a new design then, I would expect the machine to be a 700kg, IO-360 powered machine with a high inertia rotor system (still 2-blade tri-hinge). I fear that although such a machine would be faster, safer and able to lift more, it would cost more and struggle against a fleet of it's aging predecessors and the handful of more innovative designs that are on the horizon, all costing significantly less to operate. Some form of jet-fuelled engine will be available in light helicopters in the next five years or so and will have a significant impact on the operating cost in many areas around the globe. All of these facts will make it very difficult for Robinson to justify replacing R22, especially when it diverts valuable resources away from the R55 program.
As for shutting R22 production down, i'm not convinced that it will happen, in 2005 as suggested here, my feeling is that it will plod on until something comes along to take away it's market share or the demand for R44 and R55 becomes so great that all of Robinsons production resources must be dedicated to the production of the bigger machines.
But fear not, there are at least two major projects in Europe that will have new light helicopters on the market in the next five years, one in France and one in the UK. The French project is currently undergoing certification and the British one is the most advanced light helicopter that has ever been designed. So my advice is not to panic, because if Robinson leaves a gap, someone will fill and if he doesn't then there will be a couple of new options to have a look at, and the UK one has a sensational new engine!
CRAN
The major difficulty in helicopter design, especially small helicopter design is the choice of engine. Lycoming engines are too heavy for helicopters really, and de-rated ones make things particularly difficult. Unfortunately, there are few alternatives. This is a point that Frank has made in the press about the R55 that is on the horizon, if we take the R55 as an example to illustrate the point: You would have to work a IO-540 rather hard to get the ~300hp required for a healthy five-seater and the IO-720 is very heavy due to the long-block layout, neither make the 'Robinson de-rate' policy particularly easy to implement in a meaningful manner, not to mention the fact that the engines are dated to say the least. With the exception of the Zoche 300hp aero-diesel engine (which is STILL not ready) all of the modern diesel engines are heavier than Lycomings and are unproven technology when used in the demanding helicopter duty-cycle. Turbines provide that much needed power-to-weight ratio though the RR C250 Series has terrible fuel consumption, especially when de-rated, not to mention the fact that the cost of a new C250 is about half the cost of a Raven I.
In my opinion, if Mr Zoche gets his finger-out then his 300hp aero-deisel is a candidate for the R55, it will be a little short on power in its de-rated helicopter form but it only weights 123kg, which is ~80kg lighter than a IO-540-S, or ~135kg lighter than a IO-720, which is an extra passenger in engine weight-saving alone without the 14kg per hour fuel weight saving.
There is of course the question as to whether Mr R will allow is flagship to fly with an unproven new engine...what about his prized mantle 'De-rated pistons are more reliable than small turbines?' Would a new diesel engine be able to live up to it? Hmmmmm, not likely.
This is probably the biggest concern, the benefits of the more innovative new diesel units are clear, but when they will eventually be useable is anyone's guess. If I was a betting man then I think my money would be on an IO-580 with angled valves, tuned induction, smart exhaust and a bit of help from a FADEC system such as the various aftermarket systems out there. Simply because its a low risk strategy on which Robinson can bring to bear all of the experience they have in getting the best out of the old Lycoming thumpers.
The important point here is that the R55 is growing into a very economical helicopter to compete in many markets with JetRangers, MD500's and the rest of the entry-level turbines, therefore the additional complexity and cost is easy to justify. However if you consider what would be required from a 'Next Generation Training Helicopter', then the situation begins to look rather uninviting.
By the very nature of being 'entry-level machines' training helicopters operate in the most cost sensitive sector of the market and therefore a key objective of any new design machine is to reduce the direct-operating cost. This is the factor that is limiting growth in the market sector. However, if Mr R wants to apply a similar strategy to the one outlined above for enhancing performance and refining his approach, sticking to Lycoming power-plants, and adding 'all of the usual refinements' will increase the cost substantially. In addition, a greater payload requirement and the heavier rotor system and fuselage will require more power and hence more fuel consumption, hence the DOC goes up again. All of the time blurring the line between the R2X and the R44 Raven I...is it worth it? It seems Frank thinks not.
In addition, with various companies around the world working on much more advanced (and risky) training helicopters than the probable R22 replacement, all of which would take some market share, again questions, is the R2X a worthwhile investment for the RHC? Probably not...RHC does not need to take risks, its formula for simple reliable helicopters works and can be extended to the five seat R55 for which a large market, and profit-margin exist. Beyond that then a new strategy will be required as using the IO-720 won't work, so it must be turbine but Robinson will have to think very carefully about what its products offer when powered by turbine engines in comparison to the competition, because I for one can’t see it.
In conclusion then...[applause
]If Robinson were to replace the R22 with a new design then, I would expect the machine to be a 700kg, IO-360 powered machine with a high inertia rotor system (still 2-blade tri-hinge). I fear that although such a machine would be faster, safer and able to lift more, it would cost more and struggle against a fleet of it's aging predecessors and the handful of more innovative designs that are on the horizon, all costing significantly less to operate. Some form of jet-fuelled engine will be available in light helicopters in the next five years or so and will have a significant impact on the operating cost in many areas around the globe. All of these facts will make it very difficult for Robinson to justify replacing R22, especially when it diverts valuable resources away from the R55 program.
As for shutting R22 production down, i'm not convinced that it will happen, in 2005 as suggested here, my feeling is that it will plod on until something comes along to take away it's market share or the demand for R44 and R55 becomes so great that all of Robinsons production resources must be dedicated to the production of the bigger machines.
But fear not, there are at least two major projects in Europe that will have new light helicopters on the market in the next five years, one in France and one in the UK. The French project is currently undergoing certification and the British one is the most advanced light helicopter that has ever been designed. So my advice is not to panic, because if Robinson leaves a gap, someone will fill and if he doesn't then there will be a couple of new options to have a look at, and the UK one has a sensational new engine!
CRAN
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richmond
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused... I thought it would be cheaper to fly R22/44's in S.A. but going by what Dual Driver says its actually more expensive!
In the U.K. for solo hr building I will pay £150 for the R22 and £250 for the R44 per hour.
Could somebody give me an idea of what I would pay in S.A. for solo hr building in these craft...I was hoping to take a 3 wk holiday out there at the end of the year, to catch up with my mate doing fixed wing in Port Elizabeth. But at those price i'm simply
In the U.K. for solo hr building I will pay £150 for the R22 and £250 for the R44 per hour.
Could somebody give me an idea of what I would pay in S.A. for solo hr building in these craft...I was hoping to take a 3 wk holiday out there at the end of the year, to catch up with my mate doing fixed wing in Port Elizabeth. But at those price i'm simply
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the next rotorcraft trainer may rent for very little, and, be totally safe to fly.
Extremely realistic and economical flight simulators cannot be far off.
R22 Flight Simulator
Rotor Wing Hardware
Links to flight simulator added
Extremely realistic and economical flight simulators cannot be far off.
R22 Flight Simulator
Rotor Wing Hardware
Links to flight simulator added
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if RHC does stop the production of the R22, will they not have to continue to produce the spare parts and also keep capacity for all the factory overhauls unless he grants franchises to select maintenance companies around the globe to carry out the factory overhauls?
I guess that Frank has heard of the "CRAN-22" being built in the UK and want's to get out of the light helicopter market while he's ahead
I guess that Frank has heard of the "CRAN-22" being built in the UK and want's to get out of the light helicopter market while he's ahead